LOL, Carm! I seriously doubt the has on work boots. I'd even bet on it.

I am watching the eaglets right now but fixing to read everything I can "out there" on the last two days. I am kinda obsessed with this particular officer's trial. (but it started at a very inopportune time)

Analysts Weigh In On The Nero TrialBy Robert Lang | WBAL.com | May 15, 2016

A number of lawyers who have been watching the trial of Officer Edward Nero believe the prosecution has not proven its case.

Several criminal defense lawyers and law professors with no connection to any of the cases have sat in the courtroom and watched the trial which began on Thursday.

Many of those attorneys are willing to offer opinions and analysis of the trial to the more than dozen or so reporters who are covering the trial.

Attorney Warren Alperstein notes to prove assault, the prosecution has to prove that there was an "offensive touching." Alperstein notes a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision upheld the constitutionality of a suspect chase, search and arrest similar to Gray's.

Attorney Warren Brown told reporters this week that the prosecution is making a stretch by saying Nero committed a crime by committing an illegal arrest.

He says arrests are often litigated in court and, a judge may decide of an arrest is illegal to throw out any evidence gathered in the course of the arrest..

Brown is among those who think that if Nero is convicted of assault and misconduct related to Gray's arrest, it may have a chilling effect on officers, who may not chase suspects, for fear they may be charged.

[...]Miller is expected to testify for the prosecution on Monday.

He has been ordered to testify, and is being offered limited immunity, meaning prosecutors cannot use anything he says at this trial at Miller's trial which is scheduled for July 27.

Nero's attorneys have argued their client didn't have much physical contact with Gray, except when Gray asked for his asthma inhaler, and they said Nero was trying to help Gray.

University of Baltimore Law Professor David Jaros said no one should draw any conclusion about the state's case, from any one witness.

Baltimore Police Officer Garrett Miller took the stand Monday as a prosecution witness at the trial of co-defendant Officer Edward Nero, testifying that he handcuffed Freddie Gray after a chase and saw Nero help load Gray into an arrest van.

The testimony is believed to be the first time in Maryland that a criminal defendant has been compelled to testify against a co-defendant. Miller is facing charges for Gray's arrest, with his trial scheduled for July, and he was granted immunity that prevents his statements or anything derived from them from being used at his trial.

Miller and Nero were on bicycle patrol in the area of Gilmor Homes on April 12, 2015 when a supervisor called out a foot chase, and Miller testified that he never sought to clarify the purpose. Prosecutors said in opening statements that by not seeking to determine the reason for the pursuit, Nero exceeded his legal authority to detain Gray and committed an assault.

First defense witness today is Sgt Robert Hines, who trained bike officers how to place suspects in vehicles.

----------------------------------------

Prosecutors have argued the injuries that caused Gray's death were sustained in the van, as Gray was being taken to the Western District police station.

The sole defense witness called Monday was retired Charlottesville, Virginia police chief and Baltimore Police commander Timothy Longo, who also testified for the defense in Officer William Porter's first trial.

He said police general orders may be set aside by officers if they can articulate good cause to have done so in given situations, and that it is ultimately the responsibility of the van driver (in Freddie Gray's case, Officer Caesar Goodson) to ensure detainees are buckled in.

Based on a court schedule announced last week, defense attorneys said they would take up to two days to present their case, meaning the defense could rest by the end of the day, and closing arguments and a verdict from Judge Barry Williams could be handed down tomorrow.

The Latest: Nero Defense Could Wrap Up TodayBy Robert Lang | WBAL.com | May 17, 2016

1:05 p.m.

The third defense witness of the day was Officer Edward Nero’s Sgt. Warren Stephens, who says Nero considers him a mentor.

Stephens testified Nero was trained like any other officer to chase and detain a suspect if there is, " a reasonable suspicion a crime is going to be committed or a threat to public safety."

Stephens also said that general orders like the one requiring police officers to put someone in a police van in a seat belt are read at roll call which he often leads in the Western District.

When asked by defense attorneys if that specific order was read at a roll call, the prosecution objected, and the judge sustained the objection, because the question was not specific enough.

Stephens left the stand at around 11:40 a.m., and after a 10 minute bench conference with attorneys, Judge Barry Williams recessed proceedings until 2 p.m.

The defense has not rested its case, but many observers are expecting that to happen before the end of the day, with any rebuttal witnesses, and closing statements and a possible verdict coming tomorrow.

11:24 a.m.

Two witnesses have testified for the defense thus far Tuesday.

The first was Baltimore police Sgt. Robert Himes, who trained Nero in bike patrol procedures. He said part of that training is "scene security," eliminating potential threats at scenes. He said bike officers are trained in loading suspects into cars, but not vans. On cross-examination, he said a bike officer has limited ability to use a police radio while riding.

The second witness was Officer Aaron Jackson, a patrol officer in Western District.

#NeroTrial Sgt. Jackson said he saw van shaking, but did not see anyone inside, also did not see Gray being placed back in van. — Robert Lang (@Reporterroblang) May 17, 2016

He said he spoke with Brandon Ross, a friend of Gray's who took video of his arrest. He said he saw a crowd of 20 to 40 people at the scene where Gray was arrested, and said under cross-examination that he vaguely recalled seeing Gray in shackles.

Attorneys for Baltimore Police Officer Edward Nero called a string of witnesses Tuesday in an attempt to portray him as a young, earnest officer whose actions during the arrest of Freddie Gray were reasonable based on the training he had — and had not — received.

In one example, defense attorney Marc Zayon asked Sgt. Charles Sullivan — Nero's field training officer at the police academy — whether Nero had ever received training on the proper procedures for transporting detainees in police vans. Prosecutors say Gray sustained what proved to be a fatal spinal injury after being shackled and placed in a van with no seat belt.

"No," Sullivan said.

"And do you know why not?" Zayon asked.

"Because I didn't train him on it," Sullivan said.

The defense called five witnesses — four of them fellow officers — on Tuesday, the first full day of defense testimony after the prosecution rested its case Monday. At the conclusion of the day's proceedings, Circuit Judge Barry G. Williams said the defense would conclude its case Wednesday morning and that both sides would give closing arguments Thursday morning.

Defense attorneys for Officer Edward Nero closed out their presentation Wednesday, calling to the stand another expert to testify about police procedures and an officer who was present during Freddie Gray's arrest and given immunity from prosecution by the state.

Capt. Justin Reynolds, a former director of training for the Baltimore Police Department, testified that there was "no possible way" to put a seat belt on detainees in the back of police arrest vans without compromising an officer's safety. He said the wagons have "spaghetti-like" straps that require two hands to fasten.

“At one point during trial, Nero’s defense attorney Marc Zayon asked Miller if he found anything while searching Gray, and the judge cut off the question. A lengthy bench conference followed.

Nero’s statement that was admitted into evidence also appears to have passages referencing the knife removed.

University of Baltimore law professor David Jaros said he was surprised that the knife was not mentioned, calling it “critically important” to understanding the scope of how officers went about the arrest. Colbert said the lack of discussion leaves an open question of why Gray was arrested.”

That whole “The knife was legal” thing seems to me to miss the point.A) I dont think it has been shown to be legal.B) It really doesn’t matter. If cops genuinely believed it was an illegal knife then they of course act as if it was. They can not stop on the side of the road and seek expert testimony on a knife before proceeding.C) Even a “butter knife” can in fact be a dangerous weapon in the “wrong hands”/used as a weapon.

Quote:

John Galt says:May 18, 2016 at 5:14 pm

It constitutes reversible error on appeal. Mosby is contending that the cops illegally detained and arrested Freddie while being allowed to conceal the basis for his arrest.

_________________Do not go gentle into that good night.___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

BALTIMORE (AP) — The judge in the trial of an officer charged with assault in the arrest of Freddie Gray aggressively questioned prosecutors during closing arguments Thursday, repeatedly asking them about the alleged assault.

Officer Edward Nero also faces misconduct in office and reckless endangerment charges. The assault charge carries the stiffest maximum penalty of ten years in prison, while the other charges have five-year maximums.

[...]Prosecutors say Nero unlawfully arrested Gray, and was negligent when he failed to buckle the man in.

“You’re saying that’s a criminal assault, as opposed to just suppressing what’s found in that search?” the judge said. The prosecutor replied, “yes, it’s a criminal assault.”

Nero waived his right to a jury trial, instead choosing to leave his fate in the hands the judge. He did not testify.

[...]After Gray was in custody, officers found a knife on him. Prosecutors said the knife was legal and defense attorneys disputed that contention, but the judge ruled its legality wouldn’t be part of Nero’s trial.

Nero told investigators that he touched Gray only twice: once when he helped the man, who’d already been handcuffed, sit up and look for an inhaler. The second time was when the van made a stop two blocks from the arrest site, and two officers secured him in leg shackles. Nero helped those officers slide Gray onto the floor of the van, head-first.

Nero’s attorney argues his client didn’t arrest Gray, and that it is the police van driver’s responsibility to buckle in detainees.

Nero's defense attorney Marc Zayon said the officers acted reasonably that day, and Gray's flight in a designated high-crime area justified his detention. Even if the detention had been wrong, Zayon said, the officer still shouldn't be charged criminally.

"Being detained is a horrible thing," Zayon said. "Being handcuffed is a horrible thing. Being put in a prone position is a horrible thing. But the law allows it."

If Nero demands a bench trial that IMO is a brilliant move. 12 mopey jurors are always a risk and in this politically, racially motivated case the jurors are going to have all kinds of pressure put on them from the community and the immoral hack of a prosecutor, and regardless of who Voir dire process unceremoniously tosses from the box there are still going to be racist parasite rats who will convict each and everyone of these officers just because a black thug died. So we would likely get convictions or mistrials.

Let a judge convict or acquit and if the judge is so malicious and antagonistic to the law and facts as to convict, let it go to the next court on appeal.

Bravo, Mr. Nero!

I knew it! This was a brilliant move on Nero and his attorneys part.

I am so pleased! Every officer should demand a bench trial. No judge is going to throw his or her career away for a corrupt mindless DA.

To quote the late Antonin Scalia

“Understand that reason is paramount with judges and that overt appeal to their emotions is resented. The reason is rooted in the nature of what we typically think of as “jury argument” — a blatant appeal to sympathy or other emotions, as opposed to logical application of the law to facts. Before judges such an appeal should be avoided.”

…. You are fortunate if the jude will attribute such misconduct to your ignorance rather than the vulnerability of your case”

A judge is no juror.

Bravo! Nero! Bravo!

_________________If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji